MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reoptimizing Network Slice Embedding on EON-enabled Transport Networks

2021· article· en· W4200360025 on OpenAlexaff
Sepehr Taeb, Nashid Shahriar, Shihabur Rahman Chowdhury, Massimo Tornatore, Raouf Boutaba, Jeebak Mitra, Mahdi Hemmati

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Optical Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsHuawei Technologies (Canada)University of ReginaUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceEmbeddingSlicingGreedy algorithmSimulated annealingDistributed computingA priori and a posterioriMathematical optimizationAlgorithmMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

5G transport networks will support dynamic services with diverse requirements through network slicing. Elastic Optical Networks (EONs) facilitate transport network slicing by flexible spectrum allocation and tuning of transmission configurations such as modulation format and forward error correction. A major challenge in supporting dynamic services is the lack of a priori knowledge of future slice requests. In consequence, slice embedding can become sub-optimal over time, leading to spectrum fragmentation and skewed utilization. This in turn can block future slice requests, impacting operator revenue. Therefore, operators need to periodically re-optimize slice embedding for reducing fragmentation. In this paper, we address this problem of re-optimizing network slice embedding on EONs for minimizing fragmentation. The problem is solved in its splittable version, which significantly increases problem complexity, but offers more opportunities for a larger set of re-configuration actions. We employ simulated annealing for systematically exploring the large solution space. We also propose a greedy algorithm to address the practical constraint to limit the number of re-configuration steps taken to reach a defragmentated state. Our extensive simulations demonstrate that the greedy algorithm yields a solution very close to that obtained using simulated annealing while requiring orders of magnitude lesser number of re-configuration actions.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Optical Network TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207